Environment Committee on Nov. 7th, 2012

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That’s great.

[Helen Cutts]

The process was that each of the sessions were held independently, with each of the four different types of stakeholders. It was set up as a three-hour meeting with a break in between.

We spent the first hour and three-quarters or so going through the act to make sure everybody was on the same footing. After the break, we explained the regulation as it stood on July 6 with the new project list. We opened the floor to comments on that project list, but we knew that since people were still adjusting to it, they would need more time.

We gave everybody four weeks from their session; the sessions were staggered so everybody had a different deadline.

We had about 45 responses, Steve...?

[Steve Mongrain]

There were fifty-five.

[Helen Cutts]

We had about 55 formal responses come in from people who had been at the sessions, and then we received some letter campaigns related to it that were from the general public.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

This really helps. When you table it, if you're willing, would you outline who came and if there's a way to say what their concerns were? I think it would be helpful to the committee.

I'm going to come back to that, because I do want to ask about clause 432.

[Helen Cutts]

I do have a summary document of the concerns, organized by the themes of the project list.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It would be terrific if that could be tabled. Thank you.

[Helen Cutts]

Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'd like to ask about clause 432 regarding the transitional provisions. I'm wondering how many designated projects will require a federal environmental assessment. Was this provision added to address any project in particular? If so, which project was it, please, and why?

[Helen Cutts]

Okay. Well, certainly, this is one where, from a policy point of view, it made a lot of sense to add it. When we were asked how many projects it would cover, we actually took a lot of time trying to figure out how many projects could be captured. The problem is that up to this point these are projects for which no trigger has been found, so the potential number of projects that would be caught by this provision depends on whether there would be triggers found in the future.

Up to now, we're at zero. There could potentially be any number between now and January 1, 2014, so we're basically 14 months away. For a project under the old act, a federal authority typically would indicate yea or nay as to whether there would likely be a fisheries authorization. If there was a fisheries authorization, then the act could be triggered, but sometimes it took some conscious work that was very difficult in order to determine whether there was a Fisheries Act trigger. There could be delays in finding out that sort of information, and there could be delays for several months.

Right now, we are several months past the July date. No triggers have been found. It could be that as we get further and further into the future, there's a likelihood that DFO or another department would say that they remember a case from last April and their fisheries experts have found that there is a trigger that would have caused the act to be in force last year. Now we want to make sure that's subject to the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have half a minute left.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Colleagues, we will suspend for a moment and then move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]